41R. Shaw (ed.), Disaster Recovery: Used or Misused Development Opportunity, Disaster Risk Reduction, DOI 10.1007/978-4-431-54255-1_3, © Springer Japan 2014

Abstract Disasters impact communities and individuals and disrupt social- technical systems and community functions. Consequences of disasters can be min-imized if communities and people reduce their vulnerabilities and increase their resilience. Disaster response received signifi cant attention from the researchers and practitioners alike. In a sense it is easy to study short term disaster response. Investment in immediate disaster response also makes sense for policy makers. Unfortunately research on disaster recovery is very limited and it is considered the ignored phase of emergency management and existing knowledge and applied research of this phase is seriously lagging behind compared to what is required today. Disaster recovery is usually perceived and understood as a slow phase that begins after critical decisions and needs are met after a disaster. There is also a per-ceived notion that the government agencies at all levels have committed resources more to disaster response and relief efforts and less to recovery (and mitigation) efforts. Thus it is important to pay heed to this crucial phase of managing disasters. Recovery is a long process that offers ample opportunity to rebuild and redevelop resilient and sustainable communities. The chapter highlights that a shared effort to redevelop, restore, and rebuild a community requires effective intergovernmental and cross-sector collaboration and cooperation. Recent recovery experiences in the US, especially post-Katrina, have shown a considerable lack of coordination between different government agencies as well as political confl icts in planning and executing recovery efforts. The complex nature of recovery planning and efforts requires pre-disaster and post-disaster collaboration between different stakeholders including private, public, nonprofi t organizations and citizens. This chapter focuses on collaborative governance principles applied to disaster recovery using the recent National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) in the U.S. as an example. The development of NDRF is also included briefl y in the chapter. This chapter is important

Chapter 3 Collaborative Governance and Disaster Recovery: The National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) in the U.S.

Naim Kapucu

N. Kapucu (*) School of Public Administration, University of Central Florida , Orlando , FL , USA e-mail: kapucu@ucf.edu

42

to gauge the usefulness of a national level recovery framework. This framework may assist in altering the general perception about the Federal government’s lack of effort and planning towards disaster recovery.

Keywords Collaborative governance • Disaster recovery • Emergency manage-ment • National disaster recovery framework • NDRF

3.1 Introduction

Communities in the United States and abroad experience a variety of natural, man- made, and technological disasters. Hurricane Sandy in 2012, Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the four hurricanes that damaged portions of Florida in 2004, the earthquake in Haiti in 2010, and the earthquake, resultant tsunami and nuclear power plant accident that struck Japan in 2011, provide unfortunate reminders of the vulnerabil-ity of communities to natural disasters. These unfortunate events, like many others, illustrate how disasters impact communities and individuals, and disrupt social- technical systems and community functions. The threat of natural disasters will con-tinue, but their consequences can be minimized if communities and people reduce their vulnerabilities and increase their resilience (The National Academies 2012 ).

In the fi eld of disaster and crisis management, too much emphasis is placed on response to disasters. Unfortunately research on disaster recovery is limited. According to Rubin ( 2009 ) long-term recovery is the ignored phase of emergency management and existing knowledge and applied research of this phase is seriously lagging behind compared to what is required today. Disaster recovery has also not received much interest from administrative practice nor policy (Comfort et al. 2010 ). This neglect can be attributed to the fact that response compared to recovery requires immediate attention and action. Recovery is usually perceived and under-stood as a slow phase that begins after critical decisions and needs are met. There is also a perceived notion that the federal government has committed itself and its resources more to disaster response and relief efforts and less to recovery and miti-gation efforts (Comfort et al. 2010 ). Thus it is important to pay heed to this crucial phase of managing disasters.

Recovery is a long process that offers ample opportunity to rebuild and redevelop communities into more resilient and sustainable communities (Comfort et al. 2010 ; Waugh and Smith 2006 ; McEntire 2006 ). According to Comfort et al. ( 2010 ), the recovery process is “a complex system of interacting jurisdictions, public agencies, private and nonprofi t organizations, and households that are engaged in a shared effort to rebuild a community following a disaster” (pp. 669–670). A shared effort to redevelop, restore, and rebuild a community requires effective intergovernmental and cross-sector collaboration and cooperation ( Kapucu 2012a , b ). Recent recovery experiences in the US, especially post-Katrina, have shown a considerable lack of coordination between different government agencies as well as political confl icts in planning recovery efforts (Waugh and Smith 2006 ). The complex nature of recovery planning and efforts requires pre-disaster and post-disaster collaboration between different recovery stakeholders.

N. Kapucu

43

This chapter focuses on collaborative governance principles applied to disaster recovery. The study uses the recent National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) in the U.S. as an example. The research questions for this study are: What are the key elements/principles of collaborative governance? How can the collaborative gover-nance perspective be applied to disaster recovery? Does the NDRF fi t with the collaborative governance perspective? What are some of the challenges/opportunities associated with this new framework? This study is very important to gauge the useful-ness of a national level recovery framework. This framework may assist in altering the general perception about the Federal government’s lack of effort and planning towards disaster recovery, which is believed to be the neglected phase of disaster management (Rubin 2009 ). Thus studying the framework in detail and analyzing its usefulness is critical today when communities face many threats from natural disasters.

3.2 Literature Review and Background

Emergency management entails four main stages, these include, mitigation to reduce threats, risks and vulnerabilities by taking specifi c measures such as enforc-ing building codes and better building practices; preparedness which encompasses planning, trainings and exercises; response activities such as search and rescue , and recovery which usually means “the restoration of lifelines and basic services” (Waugh and Streib 2006 , p. 131). As shown in Fig. 3.1 , mitigation and prevention, sometimes used interchangeably, along with preparedness are stages that exist in the disaster management cycle (pre-incident, incident, and post-incident). The nature of tasks that entail these stages is not restricted to post-incident. However, usually the tasks in these three stages are reviewed and redesigned in consideration of the

Fig. 3.1 Phases of emergency management

3 Collaborative Governance and Disaster Recovery…

44

aftermath and consequences of disasters. Response takes effect immediately during and after the incident, while the recovery phase, as depicted in the fi gure, slightly overlaps the response phase and continues after the response and initial relief phase is over.

McEntire ( 2006 ) suggests that these phases should not be understood and inter-preted in a linear fashion but should instead be viewed as functional areas that usu-ally overlap each other. For instance, mitigation and preparedness both address the need to proactively prepare for disasters and apply disaster and risk reduction strate-gies. The strategies applied in the pre-disaster phase certainly impact the ways in which communities and agencies respond to incidents (Alesch et al. 2009 ; Kapucu and Ozerdem 2013 ; Phillips 2009 ).

Emergency management requires interagency coordination which is a fairly challenging task in situations where decisions have to be made in a timely manner (Derthick 2007 ). Response is the stage at which crucial decisions are made for immediate relief with constraints such as limited resources and time. Recovery, on the other hand, requires similar interagency coordination but constraints in recovery operations are different compared to the response stage. Although decisions are nonetheless crucial, more time and resources are available to agencies in the recov-ery phase. According to the National Governor’s Association (NGA) ( 2007 ) “recov-ery is defi ned as the process of restoring a community to pre-disaster conditions” and “[i]t is the fi nal phase of managing an emergency and continues until all sys-tems return to normal or near normal. Recovery is a longer and more complex pro-cess than response, and it can take years until the entire disaster area is completely redeveloped, either as it was in the past or for entirely new purposes that are more resistant to disasters” (p. 52).

Waugh and Streib ( 2006 ) suggest that recent catastrophic disasters have changed the way long-term recovery was initially viewed. Its increased importance is refl ected through an increased emphasis on pre-disaster recovery planning in overall emergency planning efforts. There has also been more emphasis in the effort to “link disaster recovery to economic development and to deal with the long-term social and economic problems exacerbated by disasters” (p. 132) which makes recovery a long, thoughtful process rather than a process that advocates quick fi xes. Comfort et al. ( 2010 ) argue that disaster recovery is not a regular emergency man-agement function since non-traditional players such as housing agencies, public works, urban planners, and a myriad of private companies dealing with infrastruc-ture development take a front seat in recovery efforts. This makes the job of coordi-nation and collaboration certainly more challenging but defi nitely necessary.

3.2.1 Collaborative Governance

Collaborative governance is a form of governing where both public and private enti-ties are involved in collective and consensus-oriented decision-making (Ansell and Gash 2007 ; Emerson et al. 2012 ; Kapucu 2012b ). Moynihan ( 2005 ) describes

N. Kapucu

45

governance as a networked form of government that involves entities across sectors with different skills, expertise, and resources. It is a governance form that has become more popular with complex institutional structures and provides a distrib-uted knowledge of agencies and sectors.

Ansell and Gash ( 2007 ) identify six conditions for collaborative governance. These are: this form is initiated by the government or a government agency plays the leadership role; participants include non-governmental agencies and actors; there is direct and deliberative engagement in decision-making by both state and non-state actors; formalized structures to organize, meet and engage with each other is cre-ated; decisions are made through dialog, deliberation, and consensus; and collab-orative governance is aimed at improving public policy or public management. They also identify the difference between consultative techniques and collaborative techniques of engagement which refl ect two-way communication and multilateral engagement and emphasize its importance in effective collaborative governance.

Stoker ( 1998 ) identifi es fi ve propositions for describing key elements of what entails governance and its structures. These are: governance structures are com-prised of both state and non-state actors; boundary spanning is a common practice for dealing with public issues; power dependencies and resource dependencies exist between different agencies and entities; the structures may be self-governed net-works; structures rely on the capacity and power of non-state actors in order to achieve better governance outcomes.

Along with these key principles identifi ed in the literature, leadership is a perti-nent element of collaborative and networked governance where public managers and leaders help to mobilize, facilitate, and implement collaborative and coopera-tive structures (Ansell and Gash 2007 ; Kapucu 2012b ; Moynihan 2005 ) to achieve set goals and take responsibility to engage stakeholders in deliberative ways (Wallis and Gregory 2009 ). Agranoff ( 2006 , 2007 ) suggests that governance can take the form of less-binding relationships like coordination and cooperation to more formal relationships that involve mandated or formal partnerships. Collaborative gover-nance emphasizes collaboration which is beyond mere coordination and requires the achievement of shared goals and shared decision-making through both inter- organizational and cross-sector efforts and relationships (Agranoff and McGuire 2003 ; Bardach 1998 ; Bryson et al. 2006 ; Cigler 1999 ). Some descriptions of gover-nance refl ect the idea that the government plays the central role in engaging other sectors while some descriptions of governance, such as those by Rhodes ( 1996 ), focus on the states having a minimal role. Another description of governance identi-fi es the changing role of the public, private, and nonprofi t sector where inter- dependence becomes inevitable and the blurring of sectoral boundaries becomes the norm (Stoker 1998 ).

Sometimes scholars do not differentiate between collaborative public management, networks and collaborative governance (Kapucu et al. 2010b ). Like governance can take the form of cooperative exchange, coordinative or collaborative exchange between entities, networks can also have various forms. Brown and Keast ( 2003 ) describe cooperative networks to refl ect informal and short-term relationships between entities, coordinative networks to depict joint working, decision-making

3 Collaborative Governance and Disaster Recovery…

46

and collective action for limited time action, and collaborative networks to empha-size more formal, long- term and sustainable relationships with a high level of inter-organizational trust and familiarity. However, Kapucu et al. ( 2009 ) suggest that although these terms are very similar and may follow similar characteristics and processes, in essence they are fairly different. Collaborative governance has a broader meaning compared to collaborative public management which clearly focuses on managing localities and holds public agencies and their roles in the col-laborative arrangement as central and essential. Collaborative governance on the other hand has a broader, global appeal that includes collaborative public manage-ment, networks and inter-organizational and inter-jurisdictional cooperation and collaboration.

3.2.2 Collaborative Governance and Disaster Recovery

Collaborative governance can be defi ned as a collective effort of the stakeholders in recovering from disasters. Collaborative networks are essential in emergency man-agement and disaster response (Drabek and McEntire 2002 ; Kapucu and Garayev 2012 ; Waugh and Streib 2006 ), including terrorism response (Kapucu 2012b ). Collaborative emergency management aims to tackle the structural problems asso-ciated with traditionally rigid, less open command and control response and recov-ery systems (Birkland 2007 ; Kapucu 2006 , 2008 ; Kapucu et al. 2010a ; Ward and Wamsley 2007 ). Collaborative governance is being utilized and applied to manag-ing disasters due to the catastrophic effects of disasters that are beyond the scope of any single jurisdiction or sector. More recent federal level changes and disaster management plans have also emphasized and supported the collaborative approach in dealing with disasters in the US. National level plans such as the National Response Framework (NRF) exude strong elements of the collaborative approach through their Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) and partnership approach.

According to Waugh and Streib ( 2006 ), “[w]hat we now call the new governance process forms the core of our national emergency response. Consensual processes are the rule” (p. 133). The fi eld of emergency management has transformed from a top-down bureaucratic model to a more fl exible network orientation that supports inter-organizational coordination, cooperation and collaboration (Waugh and Streib 2006 ).

The Whole Community approach has also recently been promoted by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This is a philosophical approach on conducting better and improved emergency management by engaging the whole community (Edwards 2013 ). This is an approach through which citizens, govern-ment agencies, private and nonprofi t organizations, community leaders and practi-tioners collectively decide on ways to improve their communities in order to build resiliency and a strong social structure that improves emergency management (FEMA 2011a ). The Whole Community approach followed during the prepared-ness and mitigation phase helps to improve response and recovery stages of the

N. Kapucu

47

emergency management cycle since partnerships and relationships built between community players and agencies have been developed and local resources and capacity have been assessed as part of this approach (FEMA 2011a ). When multi-jurisdictional and cross sector partnerships have been formed in a community, then functional and resource coordination and collaboration becomes easier in the phases of emergency management (Kapucu 2012a ).

The Whole Community concept has been recently applied to disasters in the US. The tornado in Joplin, Missouri in 2011 lead to the creation of a Citizens Advisory Recovery Team (CART) which is comprised of government offi cials, businesses, and residents. This coalition brought together community leaders to develop a collective recovery vision and develop goals for the community. CART was supported by FEMA’s Long-Term Recovery Task Force, along with the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). CART conducted community sessions and dialogue concerning recovery issues such as redevelopment of community facilities, schools, housing and infrastructure. Similarly a Recovery and Reinvestment Coordinating Team (RRCT) was developed after the 2008 fl ood in Iowa in Cedar Rapids. Government offi cials, the business community, schools, civic organizations and nonprofi ts acted collectively under this team to develop a plan for recovery. Goals for long-term recovery were established and discussed by involving members in open house forums and public meetings (FEMA 2011b ).

It has been observed that collaborative plans and programs initiated by the gov-ernment have focused more on improving the response stage of managing a disaster as compared to recovery. There has been emphasis on creating healthy relationships between different agencies and entities in the preparedness phase so that response to disasters can be improved and made more effective (Kapucu 2009 ). Initiatives such as the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) help urban regions develop response capabilities by investing in building and sustaining partnerships between responding agencies so that existing resources such as personnel and equipment and capabilities can be leveraged and shared ( Jordan 2010 ).

It is important to understand the nature of recovery in the United States where communities impacted by catastrophic disasters can take many years to recover. Around 14 federal level agencies are involved in administering recovery programs and plans. To implement these programs local and state governments have to work very closely with federal level agencies, which make collaboration imperative in recovery efforts (GAO 2012 ).

Moreover, it is important to emphasize that federal recovery assistance is supple-mentary in nature and the onus of recovery efforts and activities lies with state and local governments rather than FEMA or the other federal government agencies (NGA 2007 ). State and local governments are tasked to help their citizens recover from disasters. However, when a disaster overburdens the capacity of local and state government’s federal assistance then becomes available. Public assistance, as the name suggests is the federal assistance available to public entities such as state, local governments or non-governmental agencies that provide public services such

3 Collaborative Governance and Disaster Recovery…

48

as education, utilities, medical and rehabilitation etc. This type of assistance can fi nance and support the “repair, restoration, reconstruction, or replacement of a public facility or infrastructure that is damaged or destroyed” (NGA 2007 , p. 48). The federal government offers disaster unemployment assistance, crisis counseling, disaster housing assistance, legal services, veteran’s assistance, and tax relief along with providing low-interest loans for repairing uninsured property (NGA 2007 ).

Advisory committees are an example of a type of collaborative governance arrangement only when the advice of members is closely linked to the decisions that are actually made (Ansell and Gash 2007 ). This form of governance is popularly found in the recovery stage of managing disasters when different agencies and juris-dictions come together for revitalization and redevelopment plans and programs.

There was an impressive list of recovery plans that were developed for New Orleans’ reconstruction and redevelopment after Hurricane Katrina. Although the list was impressive, the lack of coordination between those plans was evident (Comfort et al. 2010 ). It took around 4 years to agree on an initial strategic recovery plan for Louisiana which meant that many businesses had already decided to relo-cate elsewhere (Rubin 2009 ). There was a lack of coordination not only in the recovery planning stage but also in the implementation stage where different juris-dictions of government were not aware of each other’s roles and responsibilities; this led to the utmost confusion about both disaster programs and their require-ments, not to forget excessive duplication and high costs (Comfort et al. 2010 ). Thus, recent experiences refl ect the need to improve recovery planning at the local, state and federal levels.

From 2008 to 2010, the GAO reviewed disaster recovery efforts led by FEMA and arrived at three broad conclusions and themes for successful recovery efforts. These three themes are: the need for clearly defi ned recovery roles and responsibili-ties; the importance of effective coordination and collaboration among recovery stakeholders; and the value of periodic evaluation of, and reporting on, recovery progress (GAO 2012 , p. 1). There has often been confusion regarding the roles and responsibilities of various recovery agents. GAO’s review of the Offi ce of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding (OFC) found disagreements in recovery stakeholders regarding their roles and the scope of operations which resulted in delays for recovery processes (GAO 2012 ).

Hurricane Katrina’s scale of impact resulted in an outstripping of local and state resources with many internally displaced people and massive destruction of infra-structure and housing. The recovery efforts so far in New Orleans and the surround-ing areas refl ect a poor display of coordination and collaboration between the local, state and federal government (Waugh and Smith 2006 ). The federal government has been largely criticized for doing less for the recovery of businesses and the rebuild-ing of the local community and its population (Dietch and Corey 2011 ). The weak recovery efforts coordinated post-Katrina made Congress realize the need for a National Disaster Recovery Strategy. Under the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, DHS was asked to develop a National Disaster Recovery Strategy (GAO 2012 ).

N. Kapucu

49

3.2.3 The National Disaster Recovery Framework

Response, compared to recovery, has been given more importance in both the research community and by the government in the planning stages of disaster man-agement (Kapucu and Ozerdem 2013 ). However, experience with recent disasters and their consequences have emphasized the need for a better recovery structure and support.

In October 2009, President Obama asked DHS and HUD to establish a White House Long-term Disaster Recovery Working Group to develop a plan for the oper-ational guidance of recovery agencies and to make recommendations for the improvement of existing recovery structure. This working group was headed by DHS and composed of representatives from more than 20 departments and agen-cies. As a direct result of this initiative the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) was developed for leading improved efforts for disaster recovery. The idea of this framework was not to increase the already existing recovery resource require-ments but to make them more useful and effective by developing an operational structure (Carter 2011 ). It is a framework that is currently being utilized as a resource to help engage various stakeholders with each other in the recovery process.

The successful implementation of the framework requires inter-organizational, cross-sector, and inter-governmental coordination. NDRF “provides a fl exible structure that enables disaster recovery managers to operate in a unifi ed and col-laborative manner. It also focuses on how best to restore, redevelop and revitalize the health, social, economic, natural, and environmental fabric of the community and build a more resilient Nation” (FEMA 2010 , p. 1). The document identifi es key principles for recovery, outlines roles and responsibilities of coordinators and stake-holders, defi nes a coordinating structure that supports coordination of tasks and communication fl ows amongst stakeholders, provides direction for both pre-and post recovery planning efforts, and explains the process through which stakeholders and communities can avail opportunities to restore and rebuild in better more sus-tainable ways (FEMA 2010 ).

The NDRF follows a similar framework to the NRF. Like the NRF, this recovery framework offers an operational structure for recovery efforts and recovery-related planning efforts. Through the implementation of the NDRF, the NRF Emergency Support function (ESF) #14 which dealt with long-term recovery has been excluded from the NRF. However, key concepts from ESF #14 have been adopted and expanded in the NDRF. Similar to ESFs that are used for response functions, the NDRF has introduced Recovery Support Functions (RSFs). “The RSFs are six groupings of core recovery capabilities that provide structure to facilitate problem solving, improve access to resources, and foster coordination among State and Federal agencies, non-governmental partners and stakeholders” (FEMA 2010 , pp. 1–2).

ESF #14 has helped to connect states and local agencies to the research commu-nity and plan for recovery. Thus, although ESFs have helped to develop avenues for improved recovery planning and efforts, its focus remains centered on the process for applying for federal assistance, etc. According to Rubin ( 2009 ) there is an

3 Collaborative Governance and Disaster Recovery…

50

imperative need to create a repository of information on recovery resources and also there is a need for technical assistance and funding to develop the capacity of local communities and states to plan recovery on their own. The NDRF addresses this concern through its newly developed RSFs and the recommended positions of recovery coordinators and managers at local, tribal, and state levels.

The NDRF has been developed to provide a common doctrine for an effi cient and effective recovery. It has also been developed to complement the already exist-ing NRF. It was created in direct response to a Congressional directive to formulate a National Recovery Strategy (FEMA 2011b ). The key concepts introduced in the NDRP are: structure, leadership, and planning. Structure is conceptualized through the Recovery Support Functions (RSFs). Leadership is provided and supported through the Local Disaster Recovery Managers (LDRMs), the State and Tribal Disaster Recovery Coordinators, RSFs and their lead agencies, the Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator and leaders belonging to private and non-profi t sectors. Recovery planning is emphasized throughout the document both pre and post disas-ter. These three concepts, along with the involvement of relevant stakeholders and the setting of desired outcomes, represent a successful recovery (FEMA 2010 ).

The framework aims to transform existing recovery efforts by guiding post- disaster recovery organizations to improve their performance and coordination dur-ing the recovery phase of emergency management. Recent experiences after Hurricane Katrina refl ect the lack of consensus in recovery planning. There were different and sometimes confl icting recovery plans being developed by different groups and stakeholders (Comfort et al. 2010 ). This framework creates and supports a strong coordination system that brings stakeholders on one platform and promotes unity of effort at different jurisdictional levels (FEMA 2010 ). The document also emphasizes pre-disaster recovery planning and recovery capacity building which is essential for developing community resiliency which helps in improving response and recovery from disasters which ultimately decreases recovery time and cost. The NDRF also emphasizes a shift away from recovery as being something that is lim-ited to restoration of pre-disaster conditions to a process that reduces vulnerabilities, promotes sustainable practices and develops community resiliency (FEMA 2010 ).

The importance of leadership in achieving successful recovery is emphasized throughout the document. The framework prescribes and recommends that local disaster recovery managers, a state disaster recovery coordinator and a federal disaster recovery coordinator should be designated to ensure unity of effort in both the pre-disaster planning stage and post-disaster recovery efforts (FEMA 2011b ). There is a separate chapter devoted to leadership describing the recommended pre- and post-recovery roles and responsibilities of recovery managers and coordinators at local, tribal, and state levels along with a detailed description of the designated position of the Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC). The FDRC’s authority, qualifi cations, selection, and credentials, pre and post disaster engage-ment and responsibilities, and activation, transition and demobilization is described clearly in the document. However, the description within the framework remains incomplete as it will be supplemented through other supporting tools and docu-ments later on (Carter 2011 ; FEMA 2011b ).

N. Kapucu

51

There is one complete section in the framework dedicated to factors that lead to successful recovery. These factors are identifi ed as: effective decision-making and coordination; integration of community recovery planning processes; well-managed recovery; proactive community engagement, public participation and public aware-ness; well-administered fi nancial acquisition; organizational fl exibility; and, resil-ient rebuilding. Each factor is explained albeit shortly but clearly in the chapter and provides valuable guidance for recovery stakeholders and impacted communities to think about measuring recovery goals and outcomes (FEMA 2010 ).

In a collaborative environment it is essential that the roles and responsibilities of each stakeholder and partners is clearly understood and defi ned so that exchange between partners is optimal and effective. The coordination and collaboration required in a disaster setting requires timeliness but not hastiness. This requires strong pre-disaster planning. The NDRF, in accordance with its principle of unity of effort clearly defi nes the roles and responsibilities of key recovery partners and stake-holders. The recommended roles and activities of individuals and families, the busi-ness community and critical infrastructure owners and operators, the nonprofi t sector, and local, state, tribal and federal governments are outlined in detail (FEMA 2010 ).

The collaborative nature of recovery is exuded to a great extent through the RSFs. The RSFs created focus on key recovery capabilities and core recovery functions such as housing, infrastructure systems, etc. RSFs are activated post-disaster, similar to the ESFs, but they bring together stakeholders for pre-recovery planning so that roles and responsibilities of different players are identifi ed enabling trusting relation-ships and strong partnerships to be developed. Although very similar to the ESF structure under the NRF, “ RSFs are different from ESFs in that they have different mission objectives, partnerships, approaches, time spans and organizational struc-ture; additionally the players and skill sets involved may be different” (FEMA 2010 ).

RSFs follow the same structure and overall purpose of effective coordination between different entities and stakeholders (Fig. 3.2 ). However, their mission and objectives, and their time spans to achieve tasks, etc. are different than ESFs. According to the FEMA 2010 ) “the objective of the RSFs is to facilitate the identi-fi cation, coordination and delivery of Federal assistance needed to supplement recovery resources and efforts by local, state and tribal governments, as well as private and nonprofi t sectors.” The RSF approach helps to improve and quicken the process of recovery and redevelopment in impacted communities. The nature of recovery partnerships and the players is also fairly different than the partnerships involved and cultivated through the ESF approach. In recovery, non-traditional part-ners will be involved such as; private and government agencies for economic devel-opment and housing fi nancing, and advocacy groups. Moreover, experience suggests that a more fl exible, scalable and collaborative approach is utilized in forging recov-ery related partnerships compared to those developed in the response stage (FEMA 2010 ). This is because the nature of recovery involves thoughtful planning and rede-velopment of a community as compared to task-oriented goals and objectives in immediate response.

The RSFs are led by federal level agencies that have been designated at the national level as depicted in Fig. 3.2 . Each lead agency of an RSF will identify and

3 Collaborative Governance and Disaster Recovery…

52

designate a national coordinator who will oversee the recovery efforts by relevant primary and supporting agencies and ensure coordination and communication between them (FEMA 2010 ). The six RSFs and their lead coordinating agencies are: Community Planning and Capacity Building (DHS/FEMA), Economics (U.S. Department of Commerce), Health and Social Services (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), Housing (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development), Infrastructure Systems (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and Natural and Cultural Resources (U.S. Department of Interior) (FEMA 2011b ; Carter 2011 ).

This framework is line the “whole community” approach that is being adopted by FEMA to develop better prepared and resilient communities. The framework identifi es the role and responsibilities of individuals and households in both pre and post disaster recovery efforts. It also identifi es the various strategies and initiatives that can and should be taken during the recovery phase. For local and state govern-ments this framework provides a guideline for improving existing recovery plans and structures as it designates coordinators for each recovery functional area. At the federal level this framework defi nes roles and responsibilities for agencies playing leadership and functional roles through the RSFs and also various annexes. For nonprofi t organizations and the private sector this framework establishes structures that integrate their involvement in recovery efforts (FEMA 2011b ).

Figure 3.3 demonstrates the expected collaborative governance networks for disaster recovery based on the RSFs in the NDRF. The fi gure was developed based on the functions and key organizations identifi ed for each function in the NDRF using (see Appendix ) the well-known UCINET network analysis software program ( Borgatti et al. 2002 ). The affi liation network shows that FEMA, DHS, EPA and USDA are involved in all the RSFs. Although FEMA and DHS are playing a more primary role in the RSFs, USDA and EPA have a more supportive role to play within these RSFs and their networks. The affi liation network also refl ects that the Natural and Cultural Resources RSF has most agencies that are exclusively involved

Fig. 3.2 RSF coordinating structure (FEMA 2011b )

N. Kapucu

53

in this specifi c RSF. Agencies like NEA, ACHP, NEH, IMLS, LOC, HP and CEQ are only playing primary and supportive roles within the Natural and Cultural Resources RSF. Similarly the network shows that there are certain agencies such as TVA, DOD, NRC, and FCC that are exclusively involved in the RSF focusing on Infrastructure Systems. The agencies and departments involved in the Economic RSF and the Community Planning and Capacity Building are more integrated within the overall affi liation network depicted showing that there may be functional overlap between these RSFs or there may be agencies involved that are playing recovery roles that are not specifi c to a certain RSF.

Overall, the NDRF is a comprehensive document that identifi es core recovery principles, roles and responsibilities of recovery leaders and coordinators at different levels of government and other sectors, and outlines a coordinating structure for dif-ferent players tasked with recovery functions and operations both pre and post disas-ter. Alongside this framework, a National Disaster Recovery Program Database (NDRPD) has been launched in March, 2011. This tool provides a database for all programs funded by and operating at federal, state, and local government levels, as well as the private sector and nonprofi t and non-governmental agencies (FEMA 2011b ). It is important to emphasize that this framework is still a work in progress. This document will be revised as the National Preparedness System in developed and updated. The National Preparedness System involves prevention, protection, and mitigation frameworks along with response and recovery. Thus improvements and updates within the system will lead to the revision of existing plans (FEMA 2010 ).

Fig. 3.3 Organizational networks in the NDRF

3 Collaborative Governance and Disaster Recovery…

54

3.3 Discussions

The NDRF in the US aims to enhance the capacity of communities to not only speed up the recovery process but to make it more effective. The emphasis on pre-disaster recovery planning throughout the framework also stresses the importance of creat-ing a resilient community that reduces recovery costs and time (Carter 2011 ). Primarily the document outlines and conceptualizes the way an effective national recovery system works and outlines an interagency structure. It explains how fed-eral agencies will organize and coordinate existing resources to improve recovery operations through the RSFs and through leaders and coordinators designated at different jurisdictional levels (FEMA 2010 ). The principles of leadership in collab-orative governance, inter-sector partnerships and clarity of roles and responsibilities of stakeholders exist within this framework. Thus, one can argue that this frame-work is perfectly in line with collaborative governance principles.

Recovery experiences have refl ected the importance of effective intergovern-mental relationships to reach recovery goals and outcomes. Experiences in the past have shown feuds and confl icts between cities, counties, and state governments along with political rivalries deciding the future of impacted communities (Alesch et al. 2009 ; Rubin 2009 ). The literature shows that pre-disaster recovery plans at state and local levels will help to avoid confl icts regarding the roles of stakeholders. FEMA has done a worthy job of delineating the roles and responsibilities of differ-ent jurisdictions and partners in the NDRF. This helps to minimize duplication in efforts and resources and also helps to foster pre-disaster relationships and strengthen partnerships (GAO 2012 ).

Collaboration is one of the main objectives and goals of the NDRF. Through dif-ferent strategies, the framework is supporting and encouraging collaboration between recovery stakeholders. The creation of the position of the FDRC helps to facilitate coordination of resources and efforts. The framework has also introduced recovery coordinators and managers at state and local levels which work closely with the FDRC to ensure collaboration and coordination is achieved. Along with developing leadership positions to lead collaborative recovery efforts effectively, the framework has established six RSFs that divide recovery into different functions to effectively coordinate resources and expertise (GAO 2012 ). There is also more useful information regarding the measurement of successful recovery and the core principles of recovery. Overall though, some of the parts of the framework lack the required detail for implementation.

The document also discusses the core principles that guide a successful recovery process. These core principles are: Individual and family empowerment, leadership and local primacy, pre-disaster recovery planning, partnerships and inclusiveness, public information, unity of effort, timeliness and fl exibility, resilience and sustain-ability, and psychological and emotional recovery. While some of these core prin-ciples are refl ected throughout the framework such as unity of effort and leadership, some core principles such as psychological and emotional recovery are only touched upon briefl y throughout the plan. Moreover, while these principles point to the right

N. Kapucu

55

direction, their implementation and the process that leads to their implementation is unclear. For instance, under the Pre-disaster Recovery Planning principle it is emphasized that the “NDRF strongly encourages innovation among the States, Tribes, localities, and the private sector in working together to identify…tools and resources…to support and sustain disaster mitigation and recovery efforts” (FEMA 2010 ), p. 10). The plan needs to highlight some examples of what types of innova-tive practices the framework does support and encourage. Moreover, it would be benefi cial if these core principles are introduced in order of their importance from a national perspective or in accordance with the framework outlined. For example, unity of effort is clearly more evident as a core principle of the framework as com-pared to psychological and emotional recovery.

Literature shows that evaluating and monitoring recovery efforts throughout the recovery period and beyond needs to be encouraged in order to gauge which efforts and plans work and which do not. This evaluation will help to develop better recov-ery policies and plans. This practice was successfully followed by the city of Kobe in Japan after the 1995 earthquake for 10 years (Comfort et al. 2010 ; GAO 2012 ). The NDRF’s section relating to factors and measures of successful recovery is very useful, however, what is lacking in this particular section is information on the development and implementation of specifi c measures and indicators for successful and effective recovery. Perhaps the inclusion of case studies and examples will pro-vide more information and direction for communities and stakeholders. According to the GAO ( 2012 ) measuring successful and effective recovery operations is addressed in the framework, but it lacks the explanation needed regarding concep-tual importance and the value of regular monitoring and evaluations.

The existing NDRF document does not seem to be a stand alone, comprehensive document. Although it provides a clear guidance and structure for recovery plan-ning and efforts, it needs to be a supported with certain operational and training tools. The guiding document of the framework says that this existing document and structure is “supported by the ongoing development of detailed operational, man-agement, fi eld guidance and training tools” (FEMA 2011b ).

3.4 Conclusion

Despite the efforts to create awareness that disaster management is the responsibility of local and state governments fi rst, and not a top–down command and control opera-tion where the federal government is always at fault, communities impacted continue to blame on federal government leadership for its ineffectiveness and lack of plan-ning, efforts and resources. This was clearly the case in Hurricane Katrina (Waugh and Streib 2006 ). Thus, it makes sense for the federal government to take a lead in developing and improving existing federal level guidelines and plans. The develop-ment of the National Disaster Recovery Framework is a step in the right direction. Even with the creation of this national recovery framework, there remains the need to provide “more in-depth information regarding actual recovery experiences,

3 Collaborative Governance and Disaster Recovery…

56

successful and unsuccessful. For example; documents and guidance useful to practi-tioners; and much more in the way of education and training” (GAO 2012 , p. 14).

There is more time needed to observe and see how this framework has been applied and implemented to more recent disasters such as Hurricane Sandy. Hurricane Sandy impacted the most populated area of the United States late October in 2012. Some signifi cant problems observed in the disaster impacted area in terms of speedy recovery. There are some parts of the area still lacks basic public services. The NDRF was implemented fi rst time in recovering from the disaster. It is early to collect data and evaluate the implementation of the framework during recovery operations from Sandy. Future research can focus in evaluating the disaster recovery networks from collaborative governance and integrated framework perspectives. Based on the evidence, policy makers might consider some revisions in the frame-work as it was the case for the National Response Framework in the US. The affi li-ation network (formal proposed relationships) included in the chapter can be compared with actual disaster recovery networks. It can also be determined whether this new framework needs to be complimented with additional important regulations and statutory support to ensure its implementation at local, tribal, and state levels.

Appendix: Leading Coordinating Agencies for Recovery Support Functions (RSF)

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) American Red Cross (ARC) Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) Offi ce for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (CRCL) Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Department of Commerce (DOC) Department of Defense (DOD) Department of Energy (DOE) Department of the Interior (DOI) Department of Justice (DOJ) Department of Labor (DOL) Department of Transportation (DOT) Department of Education (DOE) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) General Services Administration (GSA) Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Heritage Preservation (HP) Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) Library of Congress (LOC)

(continued)

N. Kapucu

57

National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) National Protection Programs Directorate (NPPD) Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (NVOAD) Small Business Administration (SBA) Department of the Treasury (TREAS) Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) United States Access Board (U.S. ACCESS BOARD) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

References

Agranoff R (2006) Inside collaborative networks: ten lessons for public managers. Public Adm Rev 66(s1):56–65

Agranoff R (2007) Managing within networks: adding value to public organizations. Georgetown University Press, Washington

Agranoff R, McGuire M (2003) Collaborative public management: new strategies for local govern-ments. Georgetown University Press, Washington

Alesch DJ, Arendt LA, Holly JN (2009) Managing for long-term community recovery in the after-nmath of disaster. PERI, Fairfax

Ansell C, Gash A (2007) Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J Public Adm Res Theory 18(4):543–571

Bardach E (1998) Getting agencies to work together: the practice and theory of managerial crafts-manship. Brookings, Washington

Birkland TA (2007) Lessons of disaster: policy change after catostrophic events. Georgetown University Press, Washington

Borgatti SP, Everett MG, Freeman LC (2002) UCINET for windows: software for social network analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard

Brown KA, Keast RL (2003) Citizen-government engagement: community connections through networked arrangements. Asian J Public Adm 25(1):107–132

Bryson JM, Crosby BC, Stone MM (2006) The design and implementation of cross-sector collabo-rations: propositions from the literature. Public Adm Rev 66(1):44–55

Carter T (2011) National disaster recovery framework: strengthening disaster recovery for the nation [powerpoint slides]. NCEMA fall all-hazards, Hickory, 23–28 October 2011. https://ncema.renci.org/FallConf2011/presentations/1/NDRF_.pptx

Cigler B (1999) Pre-conditions for the emergence of multi-community collaborative organizations. Policy Stud Rev 16(1):86–102

Comfort LK, Birkland TA, Cigler BA, Nance E (2010) Retrospectives and prospective on Hurricane Katrina: fi ve years and counting. Public Adm Rev 70(5):669–678

Derthick M (2007) Where federalism didn’t fail. Public Adm Rev 67(s1):36–47 Dietch EA, Corey CM (2011) Predicting long-term business recovery four years after Hurricane

Katrina. Manag Res Rev 34(3):311–324

(continued)

3 Collaborative Governance and Disaster Recovery…

58

Drabek TE, McEntire DA (2002) Emergent phenomena and multiorganizational coordination in disasters: lessons from the research literature. Int J Mass Emergencies Disasters 20(2): 197–224

Edwards FL (2013) All hazards, whole community: creating resiliency. In: Kapucu N, Hawkins C, Rivera F (eds) Disaster resiliency: interdisciplinary perspectives. Routledge, New York, pp 21–47

Emerson K, Nabatchi T, Balogh S (2012) An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J Public Adm Res Theory 22(1):1–29

FEMA (2010) National disaster recovery framework. http://www.fema.gov/national-disaster- recovery-framework Accessed 2 August 2012

FEMA (2011a) A whole community approach to emergency management: principles, themes, and pathways for action, Washington. http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=4941

FEMA (2011b) National disaster recovery framework [powerpoint slides]. http://www.emd.wa.gov/training/documents/NDRF_FEMA.pdf

Jordan AE (2010) Collaborative relationships resulting from the urban area security initiative. J Homeland Security and Emergency Manag 7(1):1–19

Kapucu N (2006) Interagency communication networks during emergencies: boundary spanners in multi-agency coordination. The Am Rev Public Adm 36(2):207–225

Kapucu N (2008) Collaborative emergency management: better community organizing, better public preparedness and response. Disasters 32(2):239–262

Kapucu N (2009) Interorganizational coordination in complex environments of disasters: the evo-lution of intergovernmental disaster response systems. J Homeland Secur Emergency Manag 6(1):1–26

Kapucu N (2012a) Disaster resilience and adaptive capacity in Central Florida, US, and in Eastern Marmara Region, Turkey. J Comp Policy Anal 14(3):202–216

Kapucu N (2012b) The network governance in response to acts of terrorism: comparative analyses. Routledge, New York

Kapucu N, Garayev V (2012) Designing, managing, and sustaining functionally collaborative emergency management networks. The Am Rev Public Adm 20(10):1–19

Kapucu N, Ozerdem A (2013) Managing emergencies and crises. Jones & Bartlett, Boston Kapucu N, Augustin ME, Garayev V (2009) Interstate partnerships in emergency management:

Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) in response to catastrophic disasters. Public Adm Rev 69(2):297–313

Kapucu N, Arslan T, Demiroz F (2010a) Collaborative emergency management and national emer-gency management network. Disaster Prev Manag 19(4):452–468

Kapucu N, Yuldhasev F, Bakiev E (2010b) Collaborative public management and collaborative governance: conceptual similarities and differences. Eur J Econ Political Sci 2(1):39–60

McEntire DA (2006) Disaster response and recovery: strategies and tactics for resilience. Wiley, New York

Moynihan D (2005) Leveraging collaborative networks in infrequent emergency situations . IBM Center for the Business of Government, Washington

National Governors Association (NGA) (2007) A governor’s guide to homeland security. http://www.chelandem.org/documents/GGHS/GGHS.pdf

Phillips BD (2009) Disaster recovery. CRC, Boca Roton Rhodes R (1996) The new governance: governing without government. Political Stud 44(4):

652–667 Rubin CB (2009) Long term recovery from disasters – the neglected component of emergency

management. J Homeland Secur Emergency Manag 6(1):1–15 Stoker G (1998) Governance as theory: fi ve propositions. Int Soc Sci J 50(155):17–28 The National Academies (2012) Disaster resilience: a national imperative. National Academy

Press, Washington

N. Kapucu

59

US Government Accountability Offi ce (GAO) (2012) Disaster recovery: selected themes for effec-tive long-term recovery. Testimony before the subcommittee on emergency preparedness, response, and communications. Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives. GAO –12-813T, USGAO, Washington

Wallis J, Gregory R (2009) Leadership, accountability and public value: resolving a problem in “new governance”? Int J Public Adm 32(3):250–273

Ward R, Wamsley G (2007) From a painful past to an uncertain future. In: Rubin CB (ed) Emergency management: the American experience 1900-2005. PERI, Fairfax, pp 207–242

Waugh WL, Smith RB (2006) Economic development and reconstruction on the Gulf after Katrina. Econ Dev Q 20(3):211–218

Waugh WL, Streib G (2006) Collaboration and leadership for effective emergency management. Public Adm Rev 66(s1):131–140

3 Collaborative Governance and Disaster Recovery…